Glenn County - Tehama County - Colusa County , California.
(c) 2009, Mike Barkley


Reduced from the case index file at

The environmental review may look considerable, but mostly it was avoidance of any real mitigations, so after the Plan was produced which said Reclamation would act after everyone else finished their actions, nothing got done and listed fish are still being "taken".


Portion of notes inside front cover Correspondence Vol 1
  • 10/17/1985 order 85-8 issued
  • 11/06/1985 order 85-10 issued
  • 11/17/1989 order 87-12 issued

    Correspondence VOL. 2 OF 12

    09/26/1962 adopted, Decision D 1100 "Decision Approving Application 18115 in part and Denying Application 19451" 18 pp --

    11/19/1962 permit 13776 issued: Amt. & Season under permit-160,000 afa - 11/01-04/30

    Correspondence VOL. 3 OF 12

    09/28/1976 Notice of Hearing 11/15/1976 on Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, towards a "water quality control plan" and a "water rights decision"; 2 phases: 1) Delta hydrology, operation of CVP/SWP, beneficial uses & water quality criteria required to protect each beneficial use, 2) water quality objectives for the Delta
  • Staff Summary for Hearing on the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Suisun Marsh; U.S. v. California affects all Reclamation permits issued by the SWRCB, now on appeal; subject D 893,D 990,D 1020,D 1100, D 1250,D 1275 & D 1291, D 1308,D 1356,D 1422,Permit Order 124 (Trinity), Permit Order 07/28/1960 app 17375 & 17376 (Whiskeytown)

    09/19/1985 SWRCB: Order Allowing Temporary Urgency Change in Point of Diversion and Point of Rediversion, 12,800 af
    10/07/1985 SWRCB: Notice of Petition for Temporary Urgency Change in Point of Diversion and Point of Rediversion, Application 5626 (Permit 12721) and Others (list attached); Reclamation petition 14 permits; divert pumping from Tracy to Banks plant 12,800 af because of selenium in subsurface drainage /return flow, need to replace/supplement 110,000 a-f for irrigation & duck club habitat in West Grasslands, compensate by placing equal amount in San Luis Reservoir Federal portion, 28,000 to USF & WS / DFG refuges , balance to private lands Grassland Water District. Fit objections: 1) possible injury to vested rights, 2) not within Board's jurisdiction, 3) not in the public interest, 4) adverse environmental impact, 5) contrary to law
    10/17/1985 SWRCB Order Validating Issuance of Temporary Urgency Change Order, 12,800 a-f into San Luis
    10/23/1985 letter Johnson/SWRCB to Houston/Reclamation, enclosed is temporary urgency change order issued 10/25/1985 [sic] on your petition 10/02/1985
  • 10/25/1985 SWRCB (Darlene E. Ruiz): Order Allowing Temporary Urgency Change in Point of Diversion and Point of Rediversion, 50,000 af to San Luis storage; selenium, boron, molybdenum
    10/25/1985 Order Modifying and Reissuing Temporary Urgency Change in Point of Diversion and Rediversion, Ruiz issued; 50,000 a-f, South Grasslands duck clubs have stopped accepting drain water because of "recent knowledge concerning bioaccumulation of selenium," and thus selenium content downstream is higher than in previous years; proposal is to use CVP water from San Luis [?] and wheel water over winter to San Luis from Banks plant to replace [?]; deleting 7, 8, & 9 of temporary order which would have place limits on selenium levels

    10/20/1987 State Water Resource Control Board, Division of Water Rights, Order Allowing Conditional Temporary Urgency Change in Point of Diversion and Point of Rediversion, Maughan; Reclamation to have insufficient capacity at Tracy Plant in the winter, thus; need Banks to wheel offset; public trust, waste, etc. --

    11/17/1987 Order Validating Conditional Temporary Urgency Change in Point of Diversion; re CCCWA, this deferral of pumping improves Reclamation capacity to meet Delta salinity standards, & not an end-run
    11/17/1987 Item 13 Proposed Order Validating Conditional Temporary Urgency Change in Point of Diversion Under Permits of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for use of the Banks Pumping Plant to Replace Diversions Deferred at the Request of the Department of Fish and Game; staff recommends Board adopt the proposed order

    Correspondence VOL. 4 OF 12

    04/27/1992 [snotty] letter Ploss/Reclamation to GCID,
  • 10/05/1992 Order Judge David F. Levi, USDC ED 91-1128 on SJ defendant's granted, plaintiff's denied [ GCID may not store its Angle water, an erroneous decision; listed because it's in the file, not because it's SWRCB's]

    Correspondence VOL. 5 OF 12

    04/06/1993 letter atty Minasian to Castle/SWRCB ,
    - 01/19/1992 91-1074 Memorandum Decision and Order Granting Permanent Injunction [shutting down GCID pumping from the Sacramento because of faulty fish screens]

    04/22/1993 faxed atty Minasian to Meroney/SWRCB received fax'd & also Reclamation answer by mail, ready to chat; "attach copy of 1960 CWC Order" [would that be : ]
  • 111560 Assignment by the California Water Commission to the United States of America of Application No. 18115

    04/06/1993 letter atty Minasian to Castle/SWRCB , communicating but no focus on a written agreement; here is background: -
    - 01/19/1992 91-1074 Memorandum Decision and Order Granting Permanent Injunction [Salmon Screens, GCID pumps]

    04/23/1993 SWRCB Division of Water Rights, Order Approving the Addition of a Point of Rediversion, and Amending the Permit

    Correspondence VOL. 6 OF 12

    04/22/1994 Order Extending the Effective Date of a Point of Rediversion; to 05/31/1995, term changes included

    07/18/1994 Order Amending Permit to Conform with Decision No. 1629 (Los Vaqueros Project), water diverted under 18115

    Correspondence VOL. 8 OF 12

    09/15/1995 Order Anton/SWRCB approving Temporary Additional Point of - Rediversion

    Correspondence VOL. 9 OF 12

    04/01/1996 Order Approving Addition of Point of Rediversion and Purpose -- of Use, and Amending the Permit, Ap 18115 Permit 136776;

    Correspondence VOL. 11 OF 12

    12/29/1997 letter Felix Smith to Ryan/Reclamation; on the technical team -- - [p. 2] v. SWRCB, 207 CalApp.3d. 585, 1989; a "the fish 'in good condition' includes 1) the health of the aquatic community, 2) the diversity and abundance of all aquatic populations, and 3) the health and overall condition of individuals as well as the aquatic ecosystem" (95-4, Bear Creek Order, pp. 18-22, 1994) & Putah Creek v. Solano Irrigation District , Sacramento Superior #CV515766, 04/08/1996 Audubon means in part:. . .
    - - -


    Correspondence VOL. 8 OF 12

    09/22/1995 letter Stackhouse/Reclamation to Anton/Div WR , advised that - Baiocchi would be filing revised conditions ; "Reclamation takes strong exception to any acceptance by the SWRCB of any revised protest dismissal conditions which may be filed by CSPA for the following reaons:
    - Legal and Administrative Authoritiy
    - - 7. [Mono Lake Decision] National Audubon Society v. Superior Court (1983) 33 Cal.3d 419, 189 Cal.Rptr. 346, 658 P.2d 709, Cert. Denied 464 U.S. 977 - Common Law Public Trust Doctrine

    Category 20 Volume 1, Transcripts and Exhibits

    folder, Index to Exhibits, A18115 and 19451, Folder #4, Date Index
  • Item 3 - Sacto. River & Delta Water Users Assoc.
    - Exh. 1 SWRB Decision D 990 (by reference)

    Category 20 Volume 1, Transcripts and Exhibits

    folder, Index to Exhibits, A18115 and 19451, Folder #4, Date Index
  • Item 5 - Glenn-Colusa Irr. Dist.
    - Exh. 12 SWRB Decision D 1042 (By reference)
    - - -


    Category 20 Volume 2, Transcripts and Exhibits

    Folder 4A Item 6 Exhibit 12 Decree in case of U.S. vs H.C. Angle et al - 179 pages [not the "Corrected Decree"
    - - -

    Environmental Review:

    10/25/1985 Notice of Exemption Pursuant to Section 21108 Public Resources Code re 50,000 a-f diverted/rediverted through Banks plant for West Grasslands selenium reduction
    10/30/1985 memo Walsh/SWRCB to Van Vleck/Resources Secretary, notice of exemption attached

    04/23/1993 memo to files from Johnson/SWRCB per call w/Reclamation . . . further application necessary including showing compliance with CEQA
    04/23/1993 memo to files from Anton/SWRCB attached Notice of Exemption
    04/23/1993 letter Anton/SWRCB to Baiocchi/Calif. Sportfishing, no specific factual evidence in your protest that public trust resources of Stony Creek are being harmed or that Reclamation is impacting the public trust resources of this creek system and thus complaint is incomplete and not accepted; CDFG says no harm to warm-water fishery, & thus no significant adverse effects; will continue to process the petition change & determined a Class I CEQA Exemption is appropriate
    04/23/1993 SWRCB Notice of Exemption
    11/04/1993 letter Baiocchi/CSPA to Johnson/SWRCB status of CSPA public trust complaint?....concerned SWRCB avoiding CEQA [apparently never received 04/23/1993 Dump the Protest letter]

    01/06/1994 letter Dimmick/Reclamation to Anton/SWRCB enclosed is a petition for change, CDFG wants data that won't be available until after the expiration, so please make this a temporary extension to 05/31/1995, CEQA categorical exemption,

    01/31/1994 protest, Baiocchi/CSPA ; NEPA documents required prior to proposed action, not after it is implemented; Reclamation violating California F & G Code 5937 in that permit "13776 does not contain mandatory daily flow requirements to protect the public trust resources of Stony Creek from Black Butte Dam to the Sacramento River", many days of zero flows 1970 - 1992; Black Butte adding to stored water outside of permitted storage season

    03/11/1994 letter Sackett/Reclamation to Anton/SWRCB re: Baiocchi protest 1) disagrees that Stony Creek is winter-run chinook salmon habitat, GCID dam in the way; 2 & 3 agree, but covered by a "categorical exclusion checklist (CEC)" and a Section 404 nationwide Permit 23 to 02/18/1995 [?], EA later if data supports; 5. CEC for NEPA;. . . . [Has Section 404 been repealed?]

    04/19/1994 fax Colon/Reclamation to Meroney/SWRCB transmitting CSPA dismissal
  • 04/19/1994 letter Colon/Reclamation to Anton/SWRCB enclosed document dismissing CSPA protest, 2 copies
  • 04/19/1994 Dismissal Terms and Conditions [heading fax-garbled]; EA by 12/31/19/1994: fish screen, ramping, fish & wildlife technical Group (FWT), participation request to following: Reclamation, CSPA, USFWS, CDFG, USCE, USNMFS, SWRCB, TCCA, GDCID, OUWUA, Santa Clara, Sacramento River Preservation Trust, Watermaster and a biologist selected by most of those; public meetings 4-8 weeks by 06/15/1994 maybe, FWT prepare a long-term management plan for SWRCB, minutes; additional participants by a majority vote, Reclamation's involvement contingent on availability of Federal funds; based thereon CSPA protest to be dismissed, 2 copies

    04/20/1994 letter Anton/SWRCB to Sackett/Reclamation from conference call 04/13/1994 Reclamation/CDFG/CSPA/SWRCB; SWRCB outlined CSPA issues that were acceptable, and others that would be addressed through compliance and complaint process; 1. SWRCB asked for start & stop date on entrainment protections, CSPA said all dates relevant; 2. SWRCB asked Reclamation for a ramping rate schedule; on-site inspection 04/15/1994 Reclamation/CSPA/CDFG yielded provision of EA by 12/31/1994 reduced to permit term resolving CSPA protest; CSPA alleges gaging station records violate Cal. F & G Code, referred to Compliance unit for review, as with general public trust allegations which CSPA asks be kept inactive for 2 years pending completion of EA, etc.

    04/22/1994 Notice of Exemption, to OPR from SWRCB, on extension, 2 copies, one signed, one stamped

    12/15/1994 Contact Report L.L. Attaway/D Water Rights by Trost/Reclamation , need to mid to late January 1995 to submit final EA due 12/31/1994, told him to write the Division & explain

    12/22/1994 letter Sackett/Reclamation to Anton/D Water Rights , please extend time from 12/31/1994 to 01/31/1995 for completion of EA, delays in receiving final "Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report and official comments on the draft EA."

    02/02/1995 letter Sackett/Reclamation to Anton/D Water Rights , thank you for the extension, EA copy enclosed
    02/09/1995 letter Sackett/Reclamation to Anton/D Water Rights , FONSI enclosed
  • 02/03/1995 Finding of No Significant Impact, Rediversion of Water to the Tehama-Colusa Canal at the Stony Creek Siphon
  • Finding of No Significant Impact, Rediversion of Water to the Tehama-Colusa Canal at the Stony Creek Siphon [narrative] [excludes massive cumulative impacts to each of the areas discussed]

    03/14/1995 Contact report Meroney/Div Water Rights called Trost/Reclamation, when is the permanent Petition Change for Rediversion coming? asked for extension of temporary because 1) task force money no longer available but may be forthcoming, 2) remaining info for EA not available until 04/15/1995,. . .

    05/03/1995 contact report Meroney/SWRCB from Hirtzel/USFWS re EA & when is Reclamation submitting petition for permanent change? cited Reclamation letter within 45 days from 04/14/1995, Hirtzel awaiting funding from Reclamation for supplementary EA;. . . 05/04/1995 no call back assume no further

    05/18/1995 Agenda Stony Creek Task Force Meeting [attachment:]
  • 05/11/1995 memo Hirtzel/FWS to anybody, Stony Creek Rediversion Permit Conditions, FWS recommends denial of rediversion unless: . . . no modification without NEPA review/compliance, or fishery agencies consensus;. . .; annual report to monitor EA compliance; . . .

    06/01/1995 letter Patterson/Reclamation to Anton/Div Water Rights rediversion change petition enclosed; supplemental EA following the fall 1994 entrainment studies expected mid-summer,. . .

    06/06/1995 Contact Report Meroney/Div Water Rights called Hirtzel/USFWS supplemental EA, anticipated 07/15/1995 or 07/31/1995

    06/12/1995 SWRCB May 1995 Notice of Petitions Received, including for 18115; SWRCB staff finds significant effect on environment from these petitions for rediversion, send environmental into to Div Water Rights;

    06/13/1995 letter Medlin/USFWS to Heffler/Reclamation: review, 1) EA dates? . . . 1) EA more likely 07/31, funding transfer not until 06/02, fall fisheries study completed, FWCA being rushed overlooking potential fish & wildlife impacts?. . . .
    06/16/1995 memo Meroney/Div Water Rights to files; EA may not be circulated & approved until after the protest period passes? extend the protest period? no, let people protest & ask for extensions. [Tsk.]
    06/15/1995 contact report MF w/Showers/CDFG, need for formal endangered species consultation (CESA) , ran Rare find, no occurrences, no CESA required, CDFG would review EA/ND when circulated

    06/16/1995 memo Hirtzel/USFWS to NMFS; transmits final FWCA report, cc Meroney/SWRCB
  • July 1995 [Draft] Supplemental Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, Tehama-Colusa Canal Change in Permanent Point of Rediversion on Stony Creek, Glenn County, California, by USFWS;. . . . recommends no permanent permit, extensions of temporary with substantial continuing environmental review; ap filed differs from one for which 01/1995 Final EA was issued; numerous reports cited;

    06/29/1995 Baiocchi Protest for CSPA re Reclamation petition for permanent point of rediversion; CHO built to compensate for TCC & RBDD by releasing 300 cfs into Stony to improve habitat for 15000 salmon but releases never happened, now wants to operate CHO in reverse and not for salmon, petition would make that permanent; bypass flow of 30 cfs was allowed for fishery protection, but only during CHO ops; [effect on salmon spawning is that reverse-CHO will prevent it from being reestablished]; no real evaluation or mitigation in EA; "cumulative impacts to salmon, steelhead and other fish resourses, including the entire ecosystem of Stony Creek have occurred from the integrated operations of Black Butte Reservoir, Stony Gorge Reservoir, and East Park Reservoir. The cumulative impacts to public trust salmon, steelhead, aquatic resources, and the entire ecosystem of the Stony Creek watershed above and below Black Butte Dam was not evaluated or mitigated in the recent EA prepared by the USBR for the CHO operations. NEPA requires that cumulative impacts from this project (CHO Project), existing projects (Black Butte Reservoir, Stony Gorge Reservoir and East Park Reservoir) and future projects are evaluated." CHO not screened; CHO ops violated the CHO ops principles #9 & #10; Reclamation not managing ecosystem when they took & rediverted fishery water, adverse impacts to Black Butte minimum pool; requests to Reclamation for info for this protest resulted in inadequate responses against the protest deadline; flows at CHO need to be clearly stated & limited; using all Stony water for irrigation and none for fish is "unreasonable use and unreasonable method of diversion of the state's water and is a violation of Article X, Section 2 of the California Constitution." no statement in petition that Stony Creek sustains or did sustain salmon; "Anadromous Fish Restoration Program Core Group" findings 05/09/1995 barriers for Stony salmon & steelhead: GCID, TCC, North Diversion Dam, Black Butte Dam, Stony Gorge, East Park impaired flow, limited redds, limited riparian vegetation, inadequate releases; GCID dam erected 02/1994 stranded 5,000 - 10,000 juvenile salmon (Maslin & McKinney 1994); TCC dam entrained resident & outmigrating fish (Brown 1994); redds downstream of North Diversion Dam suggests Dam a barrier (Reavis 1983), (& Nick Villa, pers. comm.) - 30 cfs for fish being rediverted at North Dam; prior to Stony Gorge (RM 45) Stony Creek supported 'very good' populations of chinook Salmon (Clark 1929), native runs now extinct, "Most of Stony Creek's historical salmon spawning most likely occurred upstream of RM 45."; gravel replenishment on Little Stony severed by East Park; Stony could double Sacramento System Salmon without removing dams; Black Butte severed gravel replenishment, and what remains is being mined; historically braided, but channelization & cooler water from Black Butte would help; riparian canopy & streamside vegetation would lower water temperature & sedimentation & add food insects; continuous releases from Black Butte should be 150 cfs, not 30, some spikes would help as "migration cues"; "Working Paper on Restoration Needs; Habitat Restoration Actions to Double Natural Production of Anadromous Fish in the Central Valley of California; Volume 3; Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the direction of the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program Core Group; May 9, 1995; Stony Creek; at pages 3-Xb-56 to 3-Xb-68"; a number of amendments sought, including 300 cfs limit 04/01 - 05/15 & 09/15 - 11/01 when RBDD non-op, max annual rediversion of 13,500 a-f annually when salmon observed in Stony Creek, or when not 27,000 a-f (600 a/f per day x 45 days); reserve 13,500 a-f in Black Butte above the 20,000 minimum pool for when USFWS, CDFG, USNMFS believe such needed for salmon & their habitat in Stony Creek; screens at CHO & all other diversions between Black Butte & TCC; terminate CHO ops when RDBB diversions allowed; reevaluate at first of 1) 2002, 2) RBDD solution, 3) GCID siphon; reserve 64,000 minimum in Black Butte not including Orland Project water, for "senior operational objectives"; and a whole lot of reports & studies & monitoring programs;

    07/12/1995 USFWS fax transmission cover sheet, Steve Hertzel to Meroney
  • 07/11/1995 Medlin/USFWS to Meroney/SWRCB, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Protest Regarding the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Petition for a Permanent Point of Rediversion on Stony Creek, Glenn County (Application 18115, Permit 13776); FWCA report was appendix to Reclamation's final EA; 1) petition as filed does not reflect USFWS NEPA & FWCA results; 2) would interfere with long-term fish & wildlife habitat restoration
  • UNDATED Protest USFWS, adverse impacts, not addressed in USBR EA, FONSI is wrong, project different, impacts in attachment, mitigation conditions in attachment
  • Attachment; EA & FONSI based on 1) rediversion of "excess" CVP water to TCC 04/01 - 05/15 & 09/15 - 10/31 temporarily while RBDD gates were up, 2) adherence to operational objectives, 3) all, including impacts, subject to change; Reclamation seeks to boost from a limit of 30,150 a-f/year to 160,000, may preclude habitat restoration contrary to intent of CVPIA; petition failed to include chinook salmon as a species occurring in Stony Creek; CDFG surveys 1980,81,82 found chinook juveniles both up and downstream of TCC; Operational objectives intended to mitigate have not been adhered to, flows recorded at CHO less than 30 cfs; drawdowns of Black Butte below 20,000 a-f recorded, temperature monitoring inaccurate and resulting drawdowns non-responsive in Black Butte; asked for terms similar to CSPA; document groundwater pumping along Stony Creek downstream of Black Butte to determine recharge;. . . .

    07/11/1995 letter Medlin/USFWS to Meroney/SWRCB protesting "based on adverse environmental impacts that may occur"
  • PROTEST, USFWS , petition does not reflect the project as analyzed by USFWS or the EA
  • Attachment - FWCA reports analyzed maximum of 30,150 a-f diverted 04/01-05/15 & 09/15-10/31 time periods; petition seeks permission to divert 160,000 a-f 09/15-05/14; preclude future habitat restoration or enhancement on Stony Creek; CVPIA restoration actions "include 1) develop a water management release strategy for Black Butte Dam to improve instream flows/habitat; 2) develop a water management strategy for TCC/CHO releases into Stony Creek; and 3) the discontinuance of CHO rediversions in the TCC." Task Force may produce similar goals; "Petition for Change-Environmental Information failed to include chinook salmon as a separate species occurring in Stony Creek. Fishery surveys conducted by the California Department of Fish and Game in 1980, 1981, and 1982 collected chinook salmon juveniles both upstream and downstream of the TCC/CHO site on Stony Creek."; failure to comply with operational objectives could adversely affect bald eagles; Dismissal terms/permit conditions:
    - 1. NEPA reevaluation 2002 or as part of long-term RBDD fish passage problems, whichever first . . .
    - 11. "Begin monitoring and data collection of economic and recreational impacts of CHO rediversions for" NEPA analysis.

    01/1995 & 07/1995 Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment, Rediversion of Water to the Tehama-Colusa Canal at the Stony Creek Siphon, Reclamation, Shasta Lake Office; FONSI;. . . ...lots of mitigation proposals including some already violated; . . . estimate 3,040 entrained tadpoles; juvenile lamprey entrained is a potential concern in NEPA analysis for removing GCID berm; inventory & discussion of endangered species; "the potential use of Stony Creek by salmonids is limited relative to that of other streams in the Sacramento Valley". . . .

    07/18/1995 letter Stackhouse/Reclamation to Anton/SWRCB forwarding 12 copies of final EA & 2 copies of draft Supplemental EA, will provide any additional required, & furnish to task force;

    07/18/1995 Baiocchi/CSPA to SWRCB; Public Trust Protest; response to Reclamation response of 07/05/1995; copy of 07/05/1995 letter to SWRBC . . . . CSPA has not received scoping letter for SEA as required by NEPA; SEA should be submitted for public review & comment before Reclamation approval;. . .

    07/28/1995 letter Holt/Reclamation to Baiocchi/CSPA complete response to 05/26/1995 letter; . . . 17. EA: higher diversion rates, dilution of fish population, lower entrainment;

    08/01/1995 letter Meroney/SWRCB to Baiocchi/CSPA & Medlin/USFWS & Scammell-Tinling/USFWS, EA delayed so accepting protests from CSPA & USFWS, Reclamation to reply

    08/22/1995 letter Stackhouse/Reclamation to Anton/SWRCB , re USFWS protest Reclamation disagrees with 1) USFWS assertion that EA did not address a permanent diversion, not a temporary one - Reclamation agrees to limit diversions to the 2 6-week periods and has no plans for diversion outside those times; 2) permanent rediversion could block restoration attempts; rediversion not intended to be permanent, but staff ordered 1) environmental review based on permanent change, and 2) task force for long-term management plan; - both of which Reclamation has done; 3) dismissal terms more appropriately in an MOU than in the permit.
    08/23/1995 letter Medlin/USFWS to Meroney/SWRCB USFWS-Reclamation MOU, agreed MOU terms incorporated by reference in permit would be enough, negotiating terms

    08/28/1995 letter Baiocchi/CSPA to Meroney/SWRCB 13 pp.; won't withdraw the protest until Reclamation addresses all issues under CEQA & NEPA; new issues,
    - 1) SEA failure to allow for public comments;
    - 2) cover of SEA shows 01/1995, which is untrue, it was prepared mid-1995;
    - 3) no mention of CEQA in EA/SEA;
    - 4) cumulative impacts (under CEQA) not disclosed & evaluated; "burden is not shifted at the administrative level to those [CSPA and USFWS] challenging a project to present evidence of adverse impacts before the agency [SWRCB] can be required to assess whether such impacts exists." . . . .
    - 9) maximum rate of CHO diversion . . . SEA said CHO would be limited to 180 cfs, during the call Dr. Holt had a different explanation [ which was?]. . .
  • 08/02/1995 note to Bob from Trost/Reclamation, "includes USFWS supplemental [FWCA] Report", photo of cover of Draft SEA, January 1995

    08/31/1995 letter Diaz-Soltero/NMFS to Anton/SWRCB supports using CHO to supplement TCC but "should not preclude eventual restoration of Stony Creek or delay development and implementation of a long-term solution to fish passage at Red Bluff." EIS should reflect the long term solution; support USFWS 07/11/95 protest; Board decision should 1) ensure compliance with op objectives, 2) not preclude future restoration efforts, 3) mitigate to insignificant, 4) "promote the long-term resolution of fish and wildlife impacts on both Stony Creek and the Sacramento River related to RBDD and" TCC;

    09/11/1995 letter Patterson/Reclamation to Anton/SWRCB , much changed from draft; wet spring led to later plantings, leading to later harvest and larger fall demand; 38,000 a-f in EA not meant to be a cap, . . .

    09/18/1995 Notice of Exemption, SWRCB to Office of Planning & Research, re add Rediversion , Ap. 18115

    01/29/1996 fax t/l Hirtzel/USFWS to Meroney, Bratovich/SWRCB, draft letter on conditions
  • 02/05/1996 letter Medlin/USFWS & Dimick/Reclamation to Anton/Div WRights; remain in effect means 11/19/1962 terms and not the already expired temporary terms?. . . . 9. add earlier of 2002 or event, adds "that would alter the conclusions from the NEPA/CEA [CEQA?] documents used to develop the terms and conditions"

    030196 letter Falkenstein/SWRCB to all, enclosed for review, draft negative dec, 30 days to respond - 4 copies
  • UNDATED Stony Creek Task Force Members - Application 18115, 3 copies
  • UNDATED Negative Declaration Pursuant to Section 21080(c) Public Resources Code, 2 copies
    030196 Notice of Completion, to State Clearinghouse, 2 copies

    03/??/1996 Supplemental Environmental Assessment
    - - 07/18/1995 letter Broddrick/CDFG to Medlin/USFWS Reviewed supplement FWCA report re supplemental EA, another copy
    - fax 09/08/1995 from Parkinson/SWRCB to Heffler/Reclamation, final EA does not discuss 20,000 a-f pool vs accumulated sediment (a copy of 08/28/1995 CSPA filing)

    03/21/1996 contact report Bratovich/SWRCB phone with Heffler-Scott/Reclamation & Hirtzel/USFWS Gail: 1. no more money for the Task Force? Reclamation agreed, so they'd have to go through the Change Petition process; 2. USFWS needs no bald eagle terms & 3) ESA Section 7 vs. CEQA? Then CEQA doc would need to be recirculated, etc. Hirtzel: 1) finalize Supplemental EA before end of CEQA review, 2) proposed changes to CEQA terms leave Reclamation loopholes, e.g. "to the extent that there is not a conflict with prior water rights." Reclamation assures Supplemental will be done before CEQA finishes, told Steve all terms applied to the Bureau's permit 13776 and not to prior water rights.

    04/01/1996 Notice of Determination Pursuant to Section 21108 Public Resources Code
    040196 Notice of Determination Pursuant to Section 21108 Public Resources Code [another copy]
  • 040196 Negative Declaration Pursuant to Section 21080(c) Public Resources Code, a third copy? this one signed
    040196 letter Rivasplata/Clearinghouse to Falkenstein/SWRCB, submitted environmental doc to selected state agencies, no comment within the time, you have complied. SCH# 96032005
  • 040196 Notice of Completion
    040196 Negative Declaration , fourth copy
    040196 Notice of Determination , third copy?

    04/05/1996 letter Medlin/USFWS to Howard/Reclamation; "During the 30-day CEQA public review period it was disclosed that water rights legalities did not allow the SWRCB to impose water management permit conditions on Reclamation at East park and Stony Gorge reservoirs since Reclamation's permit 13776 is only for the storage and use of water in Black Butte Reservoir.... recommend that Reclamation initiate consultation to provide better protective management of bald eagles in the Stony Creek watershed. Pursuant to the Act [ESA], Reclamation may include the water rights holders of East Park and Stony Gorge reservoirs as applicants in this process." [Cumulative impacts under CEQA? piecemealing?]

    07/14/1996 fax t/l Kaufman to Hansen/Reclamation, support Conservancy idea; asking Holt for copy of EA and appendices;

    03/19/1997 letter Ryan/Reclamation to everybody; FONSI on 03/1997 Emergency Rediversion of Black Butte Water to T-C Canal, attached [where?]; low rainfall previous month, breakage of the shaft of the experimental helical screw pump at RBDD

    03/20/1997 contact report Hirzell called Bratovich; concerned about rumor that SWRCB approved rediversion through CHO 2 weeks earlier than the permit term of 04/01: no consultation with other agencies, no "on or about" in this permit, if one opened up like that then the other as well, precedent; "Buford Holt will write an Environmental Assessment on this USBR action.";. . . .

    11/10/1997 letter Ryan/CSPA to all, . . .p. 2 "Public review and comment on the April 4, 1997, 'Draft Environmental Assessment/Initial Study (EA/IS) for the Conveyance of Refuge Water Supply, West Sacramento Study Area,' occurred in June 1997. The final EA/IS is scheduled for release in November 1997 with the signing of the " FONSI & NegDec scheduled 12/07; . . .

    01/15/1998 letter Ryan/Reclamation to all, Plan Chapter 2 attached, comments by 01/23/1998; Reclamation "will develop the final document,. . . .
    - - 3. Steve Hirtzel, USFWS, Ecological Services - 04/16/1996; "historic operations on Stony Creek haven't managed water releases for the benefit of salmon and therefore should not be the determining factor to evaluate the feasibility of the management option."; Task Force originally was to be the Plan drafter, "but in reality, Reclamation drafted the Plan through CH2M Hill."; Southern Pacific Railroad lands in the vicinity of CHO has "a bearing on where the gravel impoundment/training dikes for CHO rediversions can be constructed on Stony Creek."; seasonal wetland in 1-1 for the seasonal wetland suggested in Reclamation's Supplemental EA?;. . . .

    04/24/1998 letter Trout/Reclamation to all; minutes from 03/19/1998 meeting attached, next 04/28/1998;. . . .
    - - 022966 Anton (Beringer)/Div WRights to Stackhouse/Reclamation, Baiocchi/CSPA, Hirtzel, USFWS; notice of dismissal terms accord, CSPA & USFWS protests dismissed; anticipate "terms may be developed to mitigate for any significant adverse effects of this project on the upstream reservoir fisheries and the endangered bald eagles that depend on those reservoir fisheries."

    10/23/1998 letter Baiocchi to Smith/Reclamation, Trout/Reclamation, Jay/SWRCB;. . . 3. Steelhead trout, NMFS, recently listed as threatened; Spring-run chinook proposed for listing by State of California under CESA; . . . p. 7 USBR must prepare an NEPA document for the Plan, and since "the management plan with the USBR's deferred unlawful streamflow conditions will have the potential to have direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to salmon fisheries and their habitat, and protected chinook salmon and their habitat, in lower stony Creek. Consequently, the USBR should prepare an Environmental Impact Statement with full public disclosure and with full public participation." Fish ladder required for Northside Canal diversion, not recommended in the Plan; p. 8 Northside diversion should be screened. CHO should be screened; p. 9 North & Southside canals should be lined; Plan should have provisions to rescure & transport salmon up & downstream; gravels to substitute for those captured by Black Butte should be recruited and installed;

    03/27/2009 letter KDM ??/Div WRights to Sahlberg/Reclamation re Reclamation 02/17/2009 request for "a status update regarding its pending time extension petitions for the " CVP permits;. . . or 3) Div cancels the 1985 petitions because of no CEQA document;. . .

    File Category 2 Vol. 1, Reports

    03/27/1996 Finding of No Significant Impact, Rediversion of Water to the Tehama-Colusa Canal at the Stony creek Siphon, folder 7 item 1

    03/??/1996 Supplemental Environmental Assessment

    File Cat 3, vols 1 Environmental Documents

    01/??/1995 Final Environmental Assessment, Rediversion of Water to the Tehama-Colusa Canal at the Stony Creek Siphon, stamped 02/06/1995, Folder 6 Item 1

    01/??/1995 & 07/1995 Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment, Rediversion of water to the Tehama Colusa Canal at the Stony Creek Siphon, Folder 6 Item 2

    01/??/1995 Final Environmental Assessment, Rediversion of water to the Tehama-Colusa Canal at the Stony Creek Siphon, Folder 6 item 3, working copy
  • 02/03/1995 Finding of No Significant Impact SONSI No. 95-07-MP, /s/ Reclamation

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Return to Stony Creek Water Wars.

    --Mike Barkley, 161 N. Sheridan Ave. #1, Manteca, CA 95336 (H) 209/823-4817